Fair points. I'm not convinced we should do either of these. But if the argument is that "nostr sucks because these features are missing," that argument is hereby downgraded to "nostr sucks because it hasn't done everything yet." But most probably nostr doesn't suck.
I think 1 is completely unnecessary, and to go against this just a little nostr:nevent1qqsqqqzz0ckjlmwpxcp8999rahl06pz5tq4xywnrcdk7jjkx5p2uuxcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygpm7rrrljungc6q0tuh5hj7ue863q73qlheu4vywtzwhx42a7j9n5psgqqqqqqs8fpf3k which I very much agree with, anyone can include any markup in any note to be rendered how the client prefers. We already do this with URLs. I can see no good reason to encode this behavior into the protocol.
As far as 2, I think the architecture of the network does ensure censorship resistance, but youre right, it cannot be consistently verified for all notes, and so the claim isn't as strong. I don't know that a chain of events is a good solution, or even that a solution is needed, I'm pretty convinced again by the claim in reference to client relay architecture and signed messages, and not entirely convinced that the added complexity is worth making the claim stronger.
Discussion
Yeah, I don't think nostr sucks, at all. I understand looking at the way things are done by other people, looking for ways to improve, but not everything that sounds like a good idea is a good idea. We don't need everything, and IMO we have basically all of what we need really. There's always room for improvement, I dislike some of the decisions made with regard to NIPs (you and i have talked about relays in kind 3 follow lists before for example) and in something like this with so many people contributing, nobody is going to get all of what they want, but I think nostr is far and away beyond anything people might consider a competitor to it.